Posts

Flip-flopping inventorship does not invalidate Egenera’s patent

Egenera v Cisco Background Egenera sued Cisco in the US District Court of Massachusetts alleging that Cisco’s servers infringe US patent number 7,231,430 (“the ‘430 patent”).  Prior to claim construction and alongside an IPR proceeding, Egenera petitioned the USPTO to remove an inventor from the ‘430 patent.  According to Egenera, this change was necessitated by […]

Prosecution history estoppel does not apply if arguments were “made in a different context”

In MTD Products, Inc. v. Andrei Iancu (MTD), MTD appealed to the Federal Circuit from an IPR decision holding all claims unpatentable of US 8,011,458.  The claims at issue concerned a zero-turn radius vehicle, typically a mower.  The claim term “mechanical control assembly” was at issue and in particular, whether or not the claim term […]